tain if a criminal charge should be preferred or a civil claim advanced, it is not usual to disclose particulars of the account of a depositor. I think it will be obvious that persons in a humble station of life who are depositors in a Post Office Savings Bank are entitled to the same protection with respect to the privacy of their banking account that depositors in any private bank are ordinarily recognized as being entitled to.

SUSPENSION OF EVICTIONS (IRELAND)

BILL.

MAJOR NOLAN asked the honourable and learned Member for Bridport, If he will withdraw the block which prevents the introduction and printing of the Bill to suspend Evictions in Ireland for a limited period, on payment of six months' rent, which Bill has been propared by and will, with the leave of the House, be brought in by the following Members:-Messrs. Martin, Healy, Dr. Kinnear, Henry, Sexton, Moore, Biggar, O'Shea, M'Coan, Errington, Daly, Richardson, Macfarlane, Litton, Finigan, O'Beirne, Whitworth, Blennerhassett, M'Carthy, Denis O'Conor, Findlater, Molloy, The O'Donoghue, Callan, Marum, The O'Gorman Mahon, Lalor, Synan, Lea, O'Donnell, Gabbett, Arthur O'Connor, O'Kelly, O'Shaughnessy, and Nolan?

MR. WARTON desired to know from the Speaker whether the Question could be put to him, as it did not refer to any Bill or Motion of which he had charge, or, if put, whether he was bound to answer it?

MR. SPEAKER: It is within the discretion of the hon. and learned Member to answer the Question or not as he pleases. The Question is quite in

Order.

MR. WARTON said, that as the Speaker seemed to think he ought to answer the Question, he would be delighted, as a matter of courtesy, to do so. His objection to the Bill was that he did not think it desirable to have two Irish Land Bills before the House at one time, and since the Question was put down, he had been furnished with an additional reason for objection. If the Government Land Bill had only five names on the back of it, what must this

MR. MITCHELL HENRY asked whether it was not an abuse of the intention of the House in adopting the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule for any hon. Member to take upon himself to block a number of Bills so as to prevent their even being printed or read by the House; and whether that was not putting legislation into the hands of any particular Member who chose to make such use of the Rule?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member puts a Question to me which is not strictly on the point of Order. If the House thinks that the practice adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) is one which involves great inconvenience, it is for the House to express its opinion.

STATE OF IRELAND-DISTURBANCES AT QUINLAN'S CASTLE, NEW PALLAS, COUNTY LIMERICK.

MR. PARNELL asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a report in the "Cork Examiner" of June 6th of a conversation alleged to have taken place between Mr. Nash and Mr. Goddard, during the recent eviction expedition at New Pallas, in which Mr. God|dard stated that he had come there at the request of Mr. Forster; and, whether this statement of Mr. Goddard is well founded?

MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I had not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers until this morning; but I may state that it is not true that Mr. Goddard went down to New Pallas at my request. I was aware of his going down, and-though I do not know that my opinion had much to do with it-I certainly did not disapprove of his going down. I am prepared to give my reason for that view if the House wishes it. In consequence of intimidation, none of the bailiffs of the district could be found to point out the houses where the evictions were to be carried into effect; and, in one or two cases previously, the police had been asked to supply that information. I had a strong opinion that it was not the business of the police to do that work; and I directed that no instructions ought to be given to them to that effect. On the other hand, it would, I think, have been most deplorable if in

(4) Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall give the prescribed notice to the land. lord, setting forth the name of the purchaser, and the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy;"

said, that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had asserted that the right of pre-emption which was given to the landlord by the Bill was the great safeguard for his interests, and the best means of preventing an extravagant consideration being given for the tenant right. That was undoubtedly so. As long as the landlord, even if he had no desire to use it, had the right, where the tenant was willing to sell at a fair price, of stepping in at any moment and buying up the interest of the latter, and in case of dispute of getting the price fixed by the Court, he could do much to minimize the inconvenience which many apprehended from a system even of regulated sale such as this Bill provided. But in order that he should have a full and fair opportunity of exercising his judgment as to whether he would purchase or not, he ought to be furnished with the name of the person to whom the tenant wished to sell his tenant right in the farm, and also the consideration which it was proposed to give for it. It was quite clear that the price which the landlord would have to give would enter largely into the calculation whether he chose to exercise his right of pre-emption or not; and so, again, with regard to the purchasing tenant. The

landlord might be willing not to interfere if the person who presented himself as the future tenant was a man whom it hand, he might be disposed to make a was desirable to accept. On the other considerable sacrifice rather than accept as tenant a person with whom it might be agreeable to have business relations. The landlord had the right of appealing against the purchaser, and of objecting to him on the ground of insufficiency of means to carry on the business of the farm, and so forth. But the consideration given for the tenancy must be an important factor in determining the sufficiency of means to meet the liabilities of the tenancy. He failed to see how the landlord could come to any decision unless he was furnished with the name of the purchaser, and also with the amount of the consideration which was proposed to be given for the tenant right. He Amendment would be that to some expresumed that the only objection to the tent the provision he proposed to insert was already contained in the Bill; but he did not see what harm could be done by inserting words which would make the intention of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister perfectly clear. Amendment proposed,

insert (4) Where the tenant has agreed to In page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall give the prescribed notice to the landlord, setting forth the name of the purchaser, and the consideration agreed to nerkassett.) be given for the tenaney."-(Sir Rowland Blen

be there inserted." Question proposed, "That those words

MR. GLADSTONE: Under the Bill, as it stands, when the tenant decides upon disposing of his tenant right he is bound to convey to the landlord the name of the proposed incoming tenant, and the landlord, if he thinks fit, has the power of objecting to that proposed tenant. It may, however, be convenient that some form of notice should be given to the landlord; but that is a question of minute detail, and I apprehend that it would be within the power of the Court to lay down rules. Under these circumstances, I think it would be better to leave the matter to the Court.

MR. BRODRICK hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Rowland Blennorhassett) would not withdraw the Amendment. He thought that the condition which the

Prime Minister had laid down would be most inconvenient in its operation. It was suggested that one of the most important and serious questions in the interest of the landlord should be left entirely to the Court; and the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the Committee to assist him in defining what the rule should be. He declined to allow the matter to be set forth in the Bill; so that practically it would be possible at some future time, when the tenancy came to be sold, that there might be a question of doubt and of evidence what consideration had been offered to the outgoing tenant for the tenant right. He submitted that such an important question ought not to be left in any kind of doubt. A considerable item in deciding the reasonable nature of the bargain between the outgoing and the incoming tenant must be the amount to be paid for the tenant right, and the amount ought, therefore, to be clearly stated and made known to the landlord. Indeed, it should be a matter of public notoriety, capable of being referred to in a single moment. He sincerely hoped the Prime Minister would not force the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment, but that he would allow this very reasonable point to be stated in the Bill. He thought some consideration ought to be paid to those landlords who had not hitherto had tenant right on their estates, and who had expended large sums in order to keep tenant right away. [Derisive cheers]. Hon. Members might laugh at this view of the matter; but he should like to know what would have been the position of the South of Ireland at this moment if the landlords had not foregone the rent, and given large sums of money, in addition, in order to assist tenants who had fallen into arrear in emigrating to America? If the Prime Minister declined to withdraw his opposition, he should certainly divide the House in favour of the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR said, there seemed to be an impression on the part of those who supported the Amendment that it would be entirely in favour of the landlords. He was of opinion that it would be quite as much in favour of the tenant as of the landlord. In consequence of the clause giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord, it was desirable that there should be some means of testing the value of the holding, and the

Mr. Brodrick

best test was the price that was given for it from time to time. He believed if a registry were kept of the price and the amount of money which passed from one tenant to another on every change of tenancy, a standard would be arrived at by which the real value of the holding could be got at. He therefore did not think the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kerry (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett) was at all an unreasonable Amendment. Perhaps, as had been pointed out by the Prime Minister, the first part of the Amendment was unnecessary, because it was elsewhere provided that notice of the intention to dispose of the tenancy should be given to the landlord; but it was most desirable for all persons concerned that the price should be stated.

MR. PLUNKET said he wished to put a question. As he understood the answer of the Prime Minister, the landlord, as a matter of course, would be made aware of who the purchaser was by receiving notice from the tenant, and that it was a matter that would obviously be regulated by rules which would be afterwards prescribed. But the Amendment went still further, and spoke of the "consideration to be given for the tenancy." Now, that seemed to him to be a very important point, and one which it by no means necessarily followed would be laid down by the authority of the Commission. The importance of it was this. As he understood, the check which the Government proposed was to secure that where more than the difference between a fair rent and a low rent was offered the landlord should himself have power to purchase or to serve notice of his intention to raise the rent. For that object it was extremely important that the landlord should know what sort of price was going to be given for the right of the tenant. The Government admitted that some provision should be made by which the landlord should be made acquainted with the name of the purchaser and the price to be paid, and under those circumstances he did not see why they should object to the introduction of the words "the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy." He wished to know if they did approve of these words or not? If they did, he failed to see why, according to the scheme of the Government measure, they should object to insert them in the clause. The Prime

Minister had very fairly admitted that they could do no harm, and the matter was of such very great importance that it was a most desirable thing this direction should be given.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE thought the name of the purchaser and the price to be paid should be given to the landlord with a clear statement of the amount that was to be paid for tenant right; but he believed it would answer every purpose to leave the matter in the hands of the clerks of the peace.

MR. CHAPLIN hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would re-consider his decision. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this additional sub-section was unnecessary, because it was already in the power of the Court to assign the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal to accept a particular tenant, and that the Amendment would confer upon the landlord additional powers as against the tenant. Now, that was not exactly the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett). His hon. Friend did not wish that this should be a question on which the Court should be able to exercise any discretion whatever, and he (Mr. Chaplin) fully concurred with his hon. Friend. A certain sum of money was to be paid for the tenant right, and that sum of money ought to be named and known so as to settle the matter for future years. If his hon Friend pressed the Amendment to a division he would certainly support him.

That, I believe, would meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.

MR. NEWDEGATE wished to point out another matter. In the case of the value of improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the greatest difficulty had been experienced in ascertaining the validity of the awards, although in that case the consideration was for actual expenditure which was capable of proof. In the case of the tenant right which the House was now about to create there would be no possibility of proof as to the value which the Court would ascertain and be guided by. The whole transaction might be fictitious, and unless the specific consideration and amount of money were stated the Court would have no possible means of ascertaining whether the statement of value was fictitious or not. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would proceed upon the principle of the Amendment, and afford the Court some means of testing the justice of these claims for tenant right.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Kerry propose to withdraw the Amendment?

SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT: Yes, Sir.

MR. HEALY was afraid that the Government scarcely knew what they were about to do. If the Amendment applied simply to Ulster, he should have no objection to it at all; but, as it applied also to other parts of Ireland, he would point out what it would do. The Government were of opinion that the price of the

"Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall, upon informing the landlord of the

name of the purchaser, state therewith the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy."

cash, and might easily be stated in the notice to the landlord. But it might be half-a-dozen cows, or six cows and a churn, or six cows and a firkin. In another case a man married off his daughter, and he sought to assign a part of his holding to his son-in-law. How were these considerations to be stated in the notice? The Amendment might be readily carried out in Ulster; but, in regard to other parts of Ireland, it would be a very serious matter. He would therefore advise Her Majesty's Government to confine the Amendment to the Province of Ulster. In the South of Ireland the operation of the Amendment would be found most inconvenient and objectionable, and it would certainly not be accepted without a strong protest.